BRUNSWICK — The Town Council voted this week to impose a 90-day moratorium on timber cutting and other work along town shorelines after trees were clear-cut along hundreds of feet of waterfront on Miller Point without any municipal review.

Robert and Nancy King had the trees cut along more than 600 feet of waterfront as part of a shoreline stabilization project on their property on Miller Point, located east of Mere Point and west of Simpsons Point.

Several residents said they were upset that they had heard nothing about the project, and some asked councilors to order the work stopped until the town planning board could review it.

“I ask the council to do its job and consider citizens’ interest,” said resident Richard Knox, who lives at 81 Simpsons Point Road. “If the council feels it should change course now, it has every right to do so.”

They argued at Monday’s council meeting that state law requires a list of uses allowed in the town’s shoreline zoning district and that because Brunswick has no use table for the district, it is in violation of state law.

The Miller Point project was approved by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers. But the town’s planning board never considered the project because Brunswick staff believed it did not require any local permits.

Knox said that in researching the project he and a lawyer determined that it constituted a use in the shoreline district, and required review because state law requires town ordinances to include use tables for shoreline and other zoning districts.

Brunswick currently has no use tables in its ordinance, making it non-compliant with state law, Knox said.

“It was also discovered with this process that the town has been non-compliant with the state for 20 years,” he said.

Several residents expressed concerns about the project at Monday’s meeting.

“I’m a very enthusiastic paddler of Miller Point,” said Rob Manter, a Brunswick resident and owner of Maine Pines Racquet and Fitness. “I want to feel like I’m paddling on the coast of Maine, not the coast of New Jersey.”

Other residents felt relying solely on state permitting leaves the town with no say in projects such as these.

“What I am surprised about is that you can get a DEP permit for a shoreland restabilization that allows you to clear-cut 625 linear feet of shorefront without having to come to the town,” said Scott Bodwell, a Brunswick resident and environmental engineer.

Town Attorney Steven Langsdorf said he has spent two weeks reviewing the details of the Kings’ project and advised against taking any action to halt it.

The landowners, he said, had followed all requirements requested of them, and to their knowledge had fully complied with the law.

“They have to look at it in terms of fundamental fairness and justice,” Langsdorf told the council. “They did what they were expected to do.”

Langsdorf recommended a moratorium on future projects along town shorelines so the planning board could craft a new ordinance that would require projects like the Kings’ to come under local review.

Council Vice Chair Steve Walker said he still wanted some action to be taken on the Kings’ project.

“I’m not prepared to accept Mr. Langsdorf’s letter as case closed,” said Walker. “I think there is still opportunity maybe to lessen the impact of this project.”

Knox agreed, and said that Langsdorf’s interpretation was ignoring the fact that the proposed use of riprap stones as shoreline stabilization constituted a use.

“I think that is extremely, extremely loose interpretation of this ordinance that was designed … to protect these resources,” Knox said. “It is a use, and it is a structure, and therefore it should have triggered – and it still can trigger – planning board review.”

After debate, the council voted 7-1, with District 4 Councilor John Perreault abstaining because of a possible conflict of interest, to impose an emergency moratorium on all future work along town shorelines for 90 days so it can consider ordinance changes. The moratorium does not affect the Kings’ project, and residents say they are unhappy that so much shoreline on Miller Point has been altered for the foreseeable future.

“It’s a stark remarkable clear-cut area,” Bodwell said. “A pristine area of Brunswick shore, a whole bluff, has been cut as we debate this.”

Here at MaineToday Media we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion.

To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use. Click here to flag and report a comment that violates our terms of use.

Breakneck

As a long-time Planning Board member in another municipality, I can assure everyone that the Maine DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers wetlands people have more expertise in shoreland matters than the town planners that I have met. Although they correctly point out legal flaws in the town’s ordinance, it appears that the objectors are abusing the process to cause delays and extra costs to a project that they just don’t like.

athiest040

waaa i wanna paddle by the trees,.. not your land mind your own business

BruceLIbby

How about considering the owners first !
Of course since this is such a horrendous thing it must have negatively impacted the
valuation of the property,have trees vs. no trees,lower their taxes !!!
Oh no ,couldn’t do that.

Derek Goodwin

Oh, the irony! That made me lol

EJ

Sorry, but I just don’t see how paddling by a property affords you the right to dictate how that property is used or managed. Using that logic, I should have input on any project that takes place along my commute.

BHShaman

>> Using that logic, I should have input on any project that takes place along my commute.

And some people would argue that as FACT.

anotheropinion

Agreed. When I bike down route 22 I want to see pristine Maine forest, and instead I have to look at the Maine Racket and Fitness Club.

Earthling4

This is the same argument that NIMBYs use against wind power projects in the UT.

pbearme

This incident shows how utterly dysfunctional Brunswick town government has been, where seniority trumps talent.

USMProfessor

Look a little further, pbearme; from my perspective, this is the norm in town (and city) government. My spouse is an environmental/civil engineer and he can give endless examples about the poor decision-making and subsequent negative consequences of town (or city) planners. He was eminently qualified for a town planning position but was ruled out when his answer to the question “If you were God, what would you want to do as a town planner?” was “Make sure that the town enforces the law and that the town ordinances are upheld.” Priceless.

Surf

Clear cuts are a legitimate silvicultural practice used to regenerate a new stand of trees. This was not a clear cut. It was land clearing. People and especially reporters in Maine, where forestry is one of the major parts of the economy, ought to know the difference.

David687

I doubt the kings plan on letting a new stand of tree growth to flourish on their now over 1 million dollar view. Bring on the sub-division…

workingmansdem

When I am out on the water the ugliest things I see are the gaudy McMansions built by retirees and Summer Bothers. If you feel underregulated, how about an Architectural Taste Board?

BruceLIbby

Wait. If the project had come under board review and not allowed would the property become more destabilized ? Actually from memory this area of the shoreline was never
equal to other areas with more dramatic appealing scenic vistas.
I also offer that if one is enthusiastically padding their chance to take in the view would be limited on both out going and incoming tides!

axion56

I worked for many years at a waterfront property in Yarmouth where there are strict 250′ shoreline set-back regulations . A percentage of canopy trees and growth are required and permits are needed before any tree ( or even branch ) removal within this setback is done . A tree company came to the site several yrs ago and cut a small amount of large branches , that didn’t even block ocean views , and were on the decline health wise , and couple of small trees . A certain % of canopy must be maintained . The Town was a bit too literal with the restrictions and fines , but they did go by the books and fined the homeowner about $ 30,000 plus the cost of $ 8-10,000 to re-plant new trees . These tree removals in Brunswick were clearly in violation of State laws , DEP regulations , and Town violations weren’t enforced . Simply slapping the land owners on the wrist isn’t fair and it sounds like these people will get away with it . Maybe with proper permits some of this would be acceptable , but one of the primary concerns is always erosion which the homeowner may regret . Most of the time leaving existing growth on banking is more effective for soil stabilization than rip-rap .

guest

clearly in violation of State laws , – Nope only the town is
DEP regulations , – Sorry, they approved the project
and Town violations weren’t enforced – they didn’t have any rules to be violated, so wrong again
Please go back and actually read the article

axion56

Dear Guest , How some of these DEP regulations were avoided is beyond me . Article states the Town has been ” non-compliant with State laws ” , granted this may put the blame on the Town and not the homeowner , but it is still a violation and Brunswick therefore does a very poor enforcement job . All-in-all , violations were committed in my opinion , if enforcement isn’t stepped up , it will continue .

guest

The dep approved the permit which is within their power. The law may need updating but that doesn’t make this illegal.

TS

Using his logic, one could argue that kayaking in a coastal wetland, which is defined as everything below high water mark, constitutes a use, and changes the unspoiled scenery and before he does that again he will need to get planning board approval.
A use is a use. Do a street view of Maine Racket and Fitness Club. Ugliest broad side of a tin bld. you will ever see in a historic village context. He probably go all the proper permits as well and I’m sure nobody in the village complained. Zone it out. make it retroactive.

workingmansdem

Very good point re: his business. Wow, some ugly. Thank you for pointing that out.

EddyL

The Kings must be friends with Poliquin… all that entitled shorefront crowd….

TS

Being the biggest crime of the last fifty years, and everybody wanted to get
in the newspaper story about it. They took 27 eight-by-ten color glossy photographs
with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one
explaining what each one was, to be used as evidence against us. They took
pictures of the approach, the getaway, the northwest corner the southwest
corner and that’s not to mention the aerial photography. (Arlo Guthrie 1967) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yLg_bzwvxg

markusinger

Thank you Mr. Manter for your cheap and totally uncalled for and grossly inaccurate shot at the State of New Jersey.